He was asking about the rearward visibility of the cockpit, and I explained why the cockpit and the cockpit hump was modified as so.
He then asked "what is the advantage in blocking the rear view".
There is no reasonable manner in which that question can be interpreted as "why is the rear hump beyond the cockpit canopy part of the fuselage and not an extended two piece canopy that is see through".
Instead, what he is asking is more reasonably intepretable as "why was the canopy and cockpit hump redesigned from that of FC-31 to what it is here".
It's a question that has been entertained time and time again in various forms, and I second by78's sentiments that the answers from the last few months are more than sufficient to answer it.
If someone asks:
"Why is the physical the rear visibility worse"
And someone answers:
"The cockpit canopy and cockpit hump has been redesigned".
... Then the next question shouldn't be:
"Why isn't the hump transparent" --- because that is an entirely unreasonable and counterintuitive question to begin with. It presumes that if an aircraft has a redesigned canopy and an extended rear hump aft to the canopy, that the existence of a rear hump should naturally or reasonably be entertained or expected to be transparent.
I literally cannot think of a way in which that kind of logic would make sense, except if one believed that perhaps rearward physical visibility was seen as such a important, primary trait to begin with.
Last edited:
